The Obama Nation

Wherever this book is discussed in a positive way, the boast that it contains 700 footnotes is not far away. Footnote number is fairly irrelevant, how many are just explanations vs how many are citations? Are the citations relevant and accurate? Citation spamming (high density cites) are often the hallmark of the hatchet man and pseudo-scientist. What better way to give the appearance of authority than to provide lots of cites - that's what proper academics do right?The footnotes boast seems to me to be a pre-emptive defence from democrats/liberals. I suspect, however, that if those footnotes where shown to not back-up what Corsi claims they do - those that wish to smear Obama will simply ignore it anyway since I don't think they themselves (in general) care about how well researched something actually is.For reference: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by SJ Gould has about 1,000 citations in it. Would you accept this argument in defence of evolution? Since when was a father's or stepfather's religion important with regards to a person's suitability for office? Not only are you betraying the spirit of the constitution with a religious test for the man but you are shitting on said spirit in you endorse being concerned with a man's stepfather's religion.Did you know that Richard Dawkins has a Christian background? Obviously he is a closet Christian who will expose the hypocrisy of atheism once and for all. I assume you mean Frank Marshall Davis? Despite the fact that the connection as far as I can tell is pure speculation. The source is meant to be Obama's book, Dreams from My Father. However, Frank Marshall Davis is not named only one person named 'Frank' that some have decided must be Frank Marshall Davis. I haven't seen anything from that book that speaks of "Frank" as being anything constituting a mentor. He was described as an old man stuck in the sixties with some hard-won words of experience. Did I miss something? I'm sure he doesn't, since that would be nearly impossible unless Obama was a fictional character in the book. No, in actual fact Corsi paints a picture, speculates on what is happening in the mind of a stranger, and tries to pass it off as demonstrating something.What I want to know is why do the Obama-smearers insist he is a communist and a closet-Islamicist? Are we expected to believe that the tenets of communism and the tenets of a fanatical politico-religion are actually compatible? Is China a Muslim country?And wait, didn't McCain become a POW at the hands of Communists? How can we be sure that in those 5 years he wasn't brainwashed into being a muslim? After all, remember what McCain wrote?

quote:

---

I am a black criminal and I have performed the deeds of an air pirate.

---

You decide.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yeah, been taking a rest. Easing my way back at the moment. As I said, the sources are meant to be the books (and the speculations of others based on the books), but I have seen nothing from said books that supports anything said. I appreciate that you don't doubt that Frank is Mr Davis, but 'well established fact'? Can you care to go beyond simply saying as much and establish it for me? If the establishment is so well, it should be trivial, yes?Further, this ignores the rather important point that the relationship with "Frank" as described in Obama's book does not seem to be the kind of relationship (eg., mentor, father figure etc) peddled by Corsi et al. Yes, he says that. However, winning a libel suit in the US is very very hard. Corsi does not (like in Britain), need to demonstrate that his claims are true, but instead Obama has to prove that Corsi had knowledge that the information was false!Besides, this is irrelevant to the boasts. The boasts are clearly not to defend against lawsuits - they are there to lend the air of authority. Good point, there is no controversy with evolution. This forum doesn't exist. There are no court cases surrounding the teaching of evolution. The fact that Gould can cite about 1,000 scientific papers each of which probably cite half a dozen of their own is one of the reasons you completely accept evolution and all its implications.

I wasn't talking about any of the other alleged associations. Just one specific one. Dude, your thinking is surely twisted? You believe everything that is 'all over the net' is an established fact? Do you fall for every rumour, urban legend and viral advertising campaign?An AP article does not establish anything as fact. The fact that lots of people are gossiping about it does not make it established fact. All that has to be done, is for enough people to talk about it as if it actually happened and people will presume it did, including sloppy reporters (like at the AP).So. You claim it was a well established fact. You have been unable to establish it in a manner that was well. At best you have established it is a well established urban legend.Let me clue you in. A well established fact is a fact that has been strongly demonstrated as being true, not a fact that is commonly believed.Other than mere assertions made by people, what evidence connects the character "Frank" to "Frank Marshal Davis"? Establish the connection for me. We can move on once this trivial bit of fact finding has been done. Otherwise I'll just have to consider Corsi's book to be repeating hearsay and speculation and then using said speculation as source material in attempt to look legitimate.So...what is the ultimate source for this bit of information? How was it rooted out? How am I supposed to tell it isn't just smear/gossip/urban legend if you won't show the working?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

You pointed this out before, I challenged it and I'm still waiting. Since when has something 'heavily lawyered' necessarily been accurate? Furthermore, if Obama wanted to sue for libel, what would he be required to demonstrate? Is it possible that a lawyer could ensure their client is technically protected against litigation even if the offending comments are blatantly false?

30% socialism is 70% not socialism. The existance of taxes doesn't equal socialism. Meanwhile, in real socialist leaning country's 30% sounds very small.Everybody knows that the Democrats are more socialist in their character than Republicans, but what about Obama is noteworthily socialist... ...and almost every succesful developed nation in the world. Are you proposing that any presidential candidate wants public schooling and free health-care are communists? Did you know that the idea wasn't Castro's? Unless I'm mistaken the idea of free education was around in Paine's time (one of the intellectual founding fathers) (about three years longer than Castro has been alive) and Britain has had free healthcare for 60 years which is longer than Castro was in power.Here is your claim: Shall we compare Obama's agenda with Clement Attlee's actual time in office? I'm sure Clement Attlee is more socialist.

quote:

---

1. Apples grow on trees.
2. Apples are grown en masse by humans who eat them.
3. Apples contain seeds that be used to grow more apple trees.
4. Apples can be squeezed to provide delicious sweet juice
5. Apples can vary from only an inch in diameter to the size of a fist.

---

The above applies to Oranges too. It doesn't say anything useful or interesting so Buz, what conclusions should we draw from your comparison? Why can we not make those same conclusions about other politicians who also match many characteristics or facts about Hitler. For instance, does the fact that Hitler and McCain were war veterans before coming into political power mean anything? How is one to tell what is important and what is not? Should we compare McCain's confession of being a pirate with others who have likewise confessed?For example, Hitler was so popular (as you pointed out) that he lost the presidential election.

First Round:
Paul von Hindenburg   18,652,000 (49.6) None
Adolf Hitler          11,339,000 (30.1) Nazi Party (NSDAP)
​
Second Round (since nobody acheived over 50%)
Paul von Hindenburg   19,360,000 (53.0) None
Adolf Hitler          13,418,000 (36.8) Nazi Party (NSDAP)

He only gained power when Hindenburg died after Hindenburg had given him the position of Chancellor (though he wasn't first choice for that role either and the Nazi Party's popularity was falling to below a third) and he found himself with limited emergency powers. At which point he tore the constitution up and essentially declared himself dictator.Of course, Hindenburg was an elderly statesman staring senility in the face who died in office. I suppose if McCain makes Obama VP (heh) and then dies in Office, the situation is slightly comparable, is the lesson here that we should watch out for Obama tearing up the constitution, murdering or imprisoning his political enemies and declaring himself the Dictator of the US?Of course, Hitler's rise to getting more power than his station was due came on the back of a terrorist attack (damn those anarchists!) so he managed to convince the President to give him more and more powers, including the Enabling Act which essentially gave Hitler the power to enact laws or commit actions that were unconstitutional...such as spying on people, taking them away to 'camps' with no trial and no lawyer and so on and so forth.If we're going to play the silly game of 'compare US politicians to Hitler' I can think of closer matches - so once again, what are we to conclude about the vague comparisons to Hitler? In short, he was second most popular in Germany with a popularity of 30-37% before ascending to any power and as he gained popularity, his powers were limited by those that saw the danger. His popularity declined, and he managed to convince a senile and popular old man to make him the second most powerful man in Germany. The old man died. He seized control, killed or exiled everyone who openly spoke against him and then asked 'Do you like me?'.This is comparable to Obama, how? As are almost all succesful leading politicians of Western Nations - that's how they have a chance of getting elected in the first place. The comparison seems moot. Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist party. Which particular policy of Hitler's is comparable to a policy of Obama's?
The Clement Attlee comparison competition remains open. Let's compare Hitler, Attlee and Obama and see who is more socialist. Why not throw FDR into the mix for some home-grown fun. Interesting that you mention this, because the only comparisons to religious prophets and Obama I've heard about come from the McCain's anti-Obama smear campaign. The formula is simple: He's not seen as dangerous or incompetent like Bush/McCain, a step back to the nineties like Clinton, a boring 'suit' like Gore or Kerry but more like an actual leader of people. This is so rare in a Presidential candidate, people get a little more worked up about it than they might otherwise. I refer you to JFK or Churchill for futher information.But after we have made the comparisons, I'd like to know what you think this tells us about Obama.Incidentally, if you know any of the parts of the book that we are meant to be discussing and you know that the cite is accurate, I'd be interested in seeing it and the sources. If the book compares Obama to Hitler that would be very interesting.

You compared Hitler and Obama.Hitler, within a month of gaining political power blamed a national crisis on communists.A month later he, at gunpoint, declared himself dictator.Within 6 months he declared all other political parties illegal and engaged in a lethal political purge.Obama? Nothing really comparable.None of his evil Muslim ties have come to light.
America remains a major capitalist country.
He's not shown any particular sympathies towards terrorists.Your fears seem to have come to nothing.